Hacker News Reader

Comment by dmitriid | Hacker News Reader

I mean. Really. That's what people hang up on?

The point for that particular gripe was this: "this allows a programmer reading Haskell code to look only at type signatures when getting a sense of what a certain piece of code does."

Yes, IO tells that ... the function does some side effects. And that's it. If your type signature is `Int -> Int -> IO Bool`, it's just as useless as `Int -> Int -> Bool`, and requires you to read the function to understand what it actually does.

Is it helpful to see at a glance which functions produce side effects and which don't? Yes, it is. Does it automagically "allow a programmer reading Haskell code to look only at type signatures when getting a sense of what a certain piece of code does"? No, no, it doesn't. `... -> IO Bool` may be launching nukes for all the information you glean from its type signature.

View on HN

You don't get any information from `IO _` functions, but that's the case with every mainstream language, where you have an implicit `IO` on every single function.

The benefit is not in `IO` -- its that its absence on a function tells you that it is heavily restricted in what it can do.

If you want to go the other way, you can concretely model the kinds of effects you need parts of your programs to do, and use that model instead of `IO`. Even if you end up implementing it using `IO`, you know it can't use more than what your model exposes.

Both of these possibilities, while not truly unique (see Agda, etc.), are absolutely rare-to-nonexistent in mainstream languages. Effect modeling is a real shift in perspective.

> You don't get any information from `IO _` functions, but that's the case with every mainstream language, where you have an implicit `IO` on every single function.

Indeed. And that's why I picked up on that particular point in the article that I'm criticising. The article chose to use those examples and those words and they don't show anything beyond what other mainstream languages have.

> If you want to go the other way, you can concretely model the kinds of effects you need parts of your programs to do, and use that model instead

Yes, you can. No, the article doesn't show that in any way. Just to remind you how I started my comment:

--- start quote ---

But this article goes out of its way to make the worst possible case for Haskell imaginable.

--- end quote ---

Does the article show "other models"? No. Does it even try and show how to reason about a function by looking at its type signature alone? Also, no. Would this article be laughed into oblivion had it been about any other language but Haskell? Yes, most likely.

> Effect modeling is a real shift in perspective.

Ah yes. Does the article talk about this? Does it show a single example of this? No.

Having a distinction of if something does IO or not is quite important, and the fact that haskell has the ability to encode it in types is what other languages don't have.

Secondly, IO is just one monad. You can build a more granular one where you can separate filesystem, network etc, and encode this into types (so you know at a glance). You can't do this in most other languages.

What are the types of things that are worth being hung up on for a language for you?

Answered in a sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25729423

Reply on news.ycombinator.com